Rupert Murdoch could face criminal charges in America after he was secretly
filmed telling journalists at his newspapers that bribing police officers
for stories was “the culture of Fleet Street”.

US lawyers said that if the admission undermines his testimony to regulators, it could leave the News Corporation chief exposed under Title 18, Section 1001, which makes it illegal to lie to law enforcers.

Mr Murdoch was filmed talking to disgruntled staff at The Sun after journalists at News Corporation’s British newspaper operation were accused of intercepting voicemails and bribing officials for stories.

Journalists told him that they authorised payments to police “oblivious to the fact the long-term practice of this company to pay public officials was illegal”, and now felt they were being made “scapegoats”.

Mr Murdoch replied: “Yeah. And one of these high-priced lawyers would say it’s our fault, but that situation existed at every newspaper in Fleet Street. Long since forgotten. But absolutely. It was the culture of Fleet Street.”

His acknowledgement that the practice of police bribery was widespread is hard to square with his testimony to MPs during the phone hacking inquiry, when he denied any knowledge of voicemail interception or police bribery.

Bradley Simon, a New York-based lawyer specialising in white-collar crime, said that Mr Murdoch’s remarks to staff could cause him new legal problems if he gave US regulators similar answers.

News Corporation is already facing investigations by the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over potential breaches of the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act. “The tape raises two issues ... the fact that he has admitted that he may have known about bribery, and also that he [appears to have been] making false statements,” Mr Simon said.

Breaches of Section 1001 carry a penalty of up to five years in jail.

A News Corp spokesman repeated an earlier statement: “Mr Murdoch never knew of payments made by Sun staff to police before News Corp disclosed that to UK authorities. Furthermore, he never said he knew of payments. It’s absolutely false to suggest otherwise.”